Election day

There is no greater right or responsibility given to us by our government than to decide who will govern us. The responsibility, though, goes beyond just voting. It also is a responsibility to educate ourselves on the truth behind the spin and the actual issues that matter to us and make an informed decision. I attempted to encourage just that by posting the FactCheck.org articles but they simply kept coming too fast and I couldn't keep up, which simply tells us how many lies, fabrications, and false implications have been flying around this fall.

We have some very important elections coming up tomorrow. Not just for President but for Congress, state office, and local office. Who we elect tomorrow in all of these elections will shape our future in many ways. I hope we all have taken the time to learn about the issues beyond the spin and I hope that we all will go to the polls tomorrow and make educated votes (if we haven't already made educated votes while casting early ballots).

I definitely see the chance to vote as a priviledge and a responsibility. I have heard far too many attack adds that did not even have “I'm so and so and I approve this message”.

I am so sick of groups telling me what the “other” candidate has done or will do. I want to know how thier candidate is going to make things better for my children!

Just having some candidate say they will lower my taxes means jack shit to me. How are you going to lower my taxes and what will teh long term effects of that be.

I do not want to vote for what will be best for me – I want to vote for what will be best for my Country! It is not about me – but about everyone that reads these posts – those that don't read these posts – those that agree with me – those that disagree with me. That is who my vote is about.

I am so sick of groups telling me what the “other” candidate has done or will do. I want to know how thier candidate is going to make things better for my children!

That's why the policy pages of the candidate websites are so nice. They tell you what the candidates themselves plan to do. Of course, many of those policies may not happen for various reasons but they at least let you know what their priorities are. They are much more useful than the counterproductive TV and radio ads and, sadly, even more useful than what you will find in the news.

I do not want to vote for what will be best for me – I want to vote for what will be best for my Country! It is not about me – but about everyone that reads these posts – those that don't read these posts – those that agree with me – those that disagree with me. That is who my vote is about.

I wish that's how more people voted. So many people vote on one or two issues that they feel are most important to them and for the candidate whose proposal will most directly help them in the short term. We need to think about more than just ourselves and more than just the next few years. This country is facing major issues, as just one of many examples it's about to go bankrupt or face skyrocketing tax rates if something isn't done very soon. What good is a couple hundred dollars more in your bank account now if, in return, we end up having to pay thousands more a decade or two now just to cover the interest payments on the staggering amounts of debt and fiscal obligations that we are creating now? All we've been hearing from the candidates is how they are going to lower our taxes right now, they have been experts at dodging the question of how they will balance the budget and avoid bankrupting the country. To me, this has to be issue #1 because it will have a profound impact on every single person in this country in the not too distant future.

Interesting timing, I just came across this article on our impending budget crisis that promises to make the current financial crisis seem like a bump in the road but no candidate, regardless of party or office they are running for, has a plan that can realistically be expected to solve it.

Just like our household budgets, we can't expect the country to borrow its way out of a poor balance sheet. At some point, the debt becomes so overwhelming that every cent you bring in goes toward nothing more than paying interest on your debt. Something has to change or we're on the path toward real problems. The longer we wait, the more painful it is going to be to fix these problems.

As Jello Biafra put it: “If voting really changed anything, they would have made it illegal.” Voting is about the lowest form of involvement in a supposedly democratic society. It is no surprise to me that so many are unmotivated to decide based on what has been presented to them as an actual choice between what are really two coin-operated corporatist puppets when, in the end, there is little discernible difference. They say all kinds of clever things to make it appear that there are real differences in ideologies, but at the end of the day in this system they serve the corporate masters who buy them with 'contributions,' often the same corporate masters on either 'side.' Be informed – though that means going outside of mainstream, corporate-owned media – and be involved, just do not mistake voting within this system for being a level of involvement that makes much of a difference.

We truly need more parties involved – deciding between the lesser of two evils really is disappointing. I am happy with none of the four vying for office. Promises of Utopia are so hollow yet millions swoon with belief.

OK so he is an anarchist that promotes civil disobedience and peace. I want peace if I have to kill you to get it – that is as ignorant as protesting a war by attacking recruiting stations. How the hell do you advocate peace by being unpeaceful?

Funny how he says voting is worthless and he tries to get votes for himself.

You're equating civil disobedience to killing someone? According to every definition I've ever seen, civil disobedience is all about non-violent forms of protesting. That's specifically what the civil in the term stands for.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civil-disobediencecivil disobedience –noun 1. the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Compare noncooperation (def. 2), passive resistance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedienceCivil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance. In its most nonviolent form (known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

The problem with many people is that they wish to follow only the laws that they agree with.

For example – using headphones in a race – obviously many people do not agree with that rule so why should they follow it? For the safety of others – right!

Most laws are there for reasons that in general will be more beneficial to the people as a whole – even if we do not see it so readily.

If Jello (theft of corporate name property) really wanted to make a difference he would see that the extreme sides of parties are largly ignored and more “normalized” “central” issues are paid the most attention to. His extreme nature puts many people off from the get go without even a chance of getting his message out.

I liken it to the street corner preacher that walks up to people telling them that they are damned to hell and . . . .

I'm not suggesting that I agree with breaking the law when there are other ways. Civil disobedience has its place when there is no other way to make a difference and/or when the laws are immoral and repressive (Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks and others used it when there was no other realistic choice). However, I don't think anyone is saying that we should speed as an act of civil disobedience just because we don't like the 25 mph speed limit in our neighborhoods.

Anyway, my main point was that a lot of people seem to have the wrong idea of what civil disobedience is. A lot of people think it's all about riots and violence. That is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is all about peaceful protesting and the avoidance of violence.

I really like that I have learned something from our discussion. Even though I am a pain in the britches about it ::)

At this point in our country what laws are truly immoral and/or repressive? Now it comes down to a division between people that want anarchy (the absence of all laws and government) and those that want order. I know we have room for improvement in how people are treated and a few other issues but none of them are so repressive or oppresive in nature like they were in the past.

If there is no law or governing body how will there be peace? The less law enforcement there is in the inner city areas the more crime and murder there is. In Jello's world who will ensure the peace and how will they do that? Who will stop a foriegn military from coming in and taking over?

So do you disagree with the quote? If so then perhaps find a more effective way to refute it than by using the feckless knee-jerk reaction of attacking the messenger.

94% of candidates who raise the most money win their races. With zero meaningful campaign finance reform within sight. Why not just cut out the middlemen voters and end that whole charade of voting and make it a fund-raising contest, determining public office-holder by who raises the most and then plow the entire sum into education and alternative energy funding?

We would still be voting for our candidate of choice – just with our pocket books instead of on a ballot.

With nearly a billion dollars spent on advertising by the candidates – I wish that kind of money could be raised for education, infrastructure and alternative fuels. The same people that spent $1,000.00 to have a hot dog dinner with then Senator now President Elect Obama (or senator McCain) would be unlikely to give even $100.00 to a fund to purchase school supplies for familes of children that couldn't afford them.

We would still be voting for our candidates but we'd be voting based on our bank accounts. Not one person, one vote. It was nice to see that the average contribution to Obama was only $80-something but, along with a lot of $10 contributions were still a relative handful of very large contributions from individuals who were essentially buying their way into at least a bargaining platform (I'm taking the more optimistic view) with the government.

For so long, I have looked at the amount of money spent on campaigning and kept wondering why the same people who are so willing to dole out big bucks to get a certain person into office are so unwilling to spend a small percentage of that amount to take care of public services like education and public infrastructure. If paying another $500/year in taxes that could be used for important projects would be so damaging, why is paying $1000s/year to keep someone in office who won't raise your taxes by a fraction of that not a problem?

I just looked it up on the We-Energies web-site. A new project is going to cost about $1,000.00 per home to put in wind turbines. I also found that turbines can last up to 20 years – that averages to about $50.00 a year per home for a completely renewable and clean resource. That is where the billion dollars of mud-slinging money should go.

We would still be voting for our candidates but we'd be voting based on our bank accounts. Not one person, one vote. It was nice to see that the average contribution to Obama was only $80-something but, along with a lot of $10 contributions were still a relative handful of very large contributions from individuals who were essentially buying their way into at least a bargaining platform (I'm taking the more optimistic view) with the government.

For so long, I have looked at the amount of money spent on campaigning and kept wondering why the same people who are so willing to dole out big bucks to get a certain person into office are so unwilling to spend a small percentage of that amount to take care of public services like education and public infrastructure. If paying another $500/year in taxes that could be used for important projects would be so damaging, why is paying $1000s/year to keep someone in office who won't raise your taxes by a fraction of that not a problem?

Well, it is not really “one person, one vote,” the wealthy donors tend to select the winners (both of the election and of the party candidate contests) either way. Wealthy donors are the drivers in the system as it exists, they give to candidates for “access” to candidates regarding their bidding. The small-time donors give based on what grand changes or policies the candidates say they will achieve for the nation yet never do — and, I suspect, know they will never accomplish (GWB & fiscal responsibility, GHWB & “read my lips: no new taxes,” McCain & campaign finance reform, any Republican & smaller government and less spending, etc. (not to single out Republicans, Dems do it as well but there are just no clear examples that come immediately to mind.)) Again and again the US populace buys into one heap of rhetoric or another, grand promises that are unrealistic given how the system has historically worked. The true believers happily contribute their $10-$100 sums and at the end of the day they may be happy with just a small provision that happens to come as a return. I would estimate that a lot of the support of true believers is simply a reaction to the contrast between the rhetoric of promises and the outcome of the past eight years. At any rate, it is the corporate money that runs politics in this country, certainly on the national level.

I am begining to see less of a role in the Presidency – kind of like the monarchies losing their significance.

I can think of a couple of Dem issues – healthcare for everyone (that was Hillary ((now Senator)) Clinton's job) nothing happend during their 8 years at the helm. Better schools – more money went to the schools but scores dropped and racial gaps widened.

More tax breaks for the middle class – I was earning less than $25,000.00 a year then and my tax burden increased!

Nothing has improved much over the past 16 freaking years!!

I would love to form a new party! The None of the Above Party! (yes it is from Brewster's Millions)